Trump’s Trade Threat Forces Thailand-Cambodia Ceasefire Exposing Global Disorder
The specter of trade sanctions, wielded like a cudgel, brought Thailand and Cambodia to the table in Malaysia this week. But the more troubling question isn’t whether this crude tactic “worked,” but what its success reveals about a global order increasingly defined by ad hoc power plays. It’s a system where decades of diplomatic protocol are bulldozed by the whims of individual actors, incentivized not by collective security, but by narrow, transactional gains. This ceasefire, mediated by ASEAN and observed by US and Chinese envoys, is less a diplomatic triumph and more a symptom of a deeper systemic rot.
That Donald Trump threatened to withhold trade deals from both countries — “We’re not going to make a trade deal unless you settle the war,” he reportedly declared — illuminates a disturbing trend. The weaponization of trade isn’t new; sanctions are an age-old tool. But to wield them so overtly, linking them directly to an unrelated border dispute, disregards the complex geopolitical realities and historical grievances underlying the conflict. It’s a declaration that the painstakingly constructed edifice of international norms, treaties, and alliances is, in the end, subordinate to the immediate gratification of power. This isn’t statecraft; it’s strong-arming, elevated to the level of foreign policy doctrine.
Thailand has insisted that any ceasefire must include troop withdrawals, an end to lethal force and an agreement to resolve conflict through bilateral mechanisms. Cambodia, by contrast, says it supports an unconditional end to hostilities.
The Bangkok Post reports that Thailand and Cambodia are now, tentatively, at peace. The trigger: disputes over territory and sovereignty along their shared 800-kilometer border. It’s a conflict with roots tangled in colonial-era maps and a history of recurrent clashes, flaring up periodically. This round, with a tragic toll of at least 36 lives lost and over 150,000 displaced, threatened escalation. But consider this: the seeds of this conflict were sown not just in contested borderlands, but in the very act of colonial mapmaking, which arbitrarily divided ethnic groups and resource access, creating the preconditions for enduring instability.
Zooming out, the Thai-Cambodian conflict reveals a fragility endemic to many post-colonial states. Arbitrarily drawn borders, legacies of external interference, and deep-seated ethnic tensions often simmer beneath the surface. As Paul Collier, the Oxford economist, has argued, these “conflict traps” can perpetuate cycles of violence and poverty, hindering long-term development and regional stability. But even Collier’s framework, focused on economic factors, risks underselling the enduring power of political narratives — historical grievances and nationalist ideologies — in fueling these conflicts. Without addressing those narratives, a ceasefire is just that: a pause.
What’s concerning is the increasing ease with which external actors can disrupt established norms and exploit these vulnerabilities. China, the top trading partner for both Thailand and Cambodia, and the US, eager to contain Chinese influence, both have strong interests in Southeast Asian stability. Yet, the ham-fisted approach of leveraging trade deals undermines the legitimacy of international institutions and sets a dangerous precedent. It’s a logic that incentivizes bad behavior, signaling to other nations that bilateral leverage trumps multilateral cooperation.
President Trump’s earlier claim that he helped halt border clashes between India and Pakistan, which India denies but Pakistan welcomes, offers a worrying preview of the new global playbook. Diplomacy, the art of subtle persuasion and mutual compromise, is being replaced by a transactional approach, where everything is negotiable and leverage is the only currency. As Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, has argued, this shift represents a move away from a “world order” to a “world of disorder,” where great power competition, rather than cooperation, defines international relations. This isn’t necessarily about achieving peace, but about projecting power, regardless of the long-term consequences.
The real question isn’t whether a ceasefire holds — it’s whether the underlying issues are addressed. It’s easy to demand an end to hostilities. It’s far harder to build a sustainable peace based on mutual respect, historical reconciliation, and equitable resource sharing. And in a world where short-term gains trump long-term stability, the prospects for genuine peace look increasingly dim. We may have bought ourselves a moment of quiet, but the silence is more ominous than reassuring. It’s the sound of a global order, once predicated on ideals of cooperation and mutual interest, quietly fracturing.
